[cmath] Campaign against Elsevier

[Volker Runde]

Dear Tomasz,

I have been working on a similar reply to Nassif's message, but you were
faster than me. Let me just say that I agree 99% with you.

Best,

Volker Runde.

2012/1/27 Tomasz Kaczynski <t.kaczynski at usherbrooke.ca>

> Dear Nassif, Dear colleagues,
>
> I am sympathetic with voices of deception with current publishing
> practices but I don’t know why this attack is explicitly on Elsevier, while
>
> 1. The problem is general and it concerns all leading scientific
> publishers, with Elsevier ex aequo Springer. Please see this paper which
> appeared in The Guardian online half an year ago:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/**commentisfree/2011/aug/29/**
> academic-publishers-murdoch-**socialist<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/academic-publishers-murdoch-socialist>
>
> For example, in the blog one says about “bundles” of Elsevier: From 2010
> on, our library has been pushed to purchase a bundle of All Springer
> electronic books in Math, leaving not too much funds for books from other
> publishers. Another example, Elsevier charges $ 31.40/paper, Springer
> $34.95.
>
> 2. The article cited above presents objections which are more fundamental
> in nature than charging high prices: it is about monopolizing the knowledge
> acquired from public funds. But it occurred to me that actually Elsevier is
> the Publisher who’s  attitude to Author’s Rights e.g. concerning the free
> on-line distribution of author’s own preprints seems to be the most
> flexible, see this new reformed policy:
>
> http://www.elsevier.com/wps/**find/authorsview.authors/**rights<http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/rights>
>
> In the view of this policy, the author may not only keep a preprint on his
> web page (or in arxiv) but even update it by incorporating suggestions from
> referees (who also are paid from public funds, not by the Publisher)
> provided there is no involvement of the Publisher’s team in producing the
> preprint version. So, regardless of how much Elsevier charges for their
> final version, whether or not the public research is publically released,
> depends on US, THE AUTHORS, not only on the Publisher.
>
> I do not find such transparent statements from other publishers, and I
> think that many authors feel intimidated by journals’ copyright policies.
> How many authors can afford purchasing the Open Access option? Those who
> do, are they the best authors or best-financed authors?  I see that many
> publications of scientific Societies and Consortiums such as IEEE or, why
> search so far, our CMS, are also a kind of “Sesame: show open” ;-)
>
> To recapitulate this, I believe that a fundamental discussion on public
> research and authors rights versus publisher’s rights is due rather than
> blasting one selected publisher.
>
> Best regards,
> Tomasz
>
> --
> Tomasz Kaczynski
> Departement de mathematiques
> Universite de Sherbrooke
> Sherbrooke, Qc, Canada
>
>
> Quoting Nassif Ghoussoub <nassif at math.ubc.ca>:
>
>  Dear all,
>>
>> This is to inform you about a campaign to boycott Elsevier launched by
>> Timothy Gowers on his blog
>>
>> http://gowers.wordpress.com/**2012/01/21/elsevier-my-part-**
>> in-its-downfall/<http://gowers.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/elsevier-my-part-in-its-downfall/>
>>
>> You can participate if you wish by going to the webpage "Cost of
>> knowledge"
>>
>> http://thecostofknowledge.com/
>>
>>
>> Nassif Ghoussoub
>> http://nghoussoub.com/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>


-- 
Volker Runde - Professor
Department of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences
CAB 632
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada T6G 2G1

Phone: 780 492 3526
Fax: 780 492 6826
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mail.cms.math.ca/pipermail/cmath/attachments/20120127/fc781663/attachment.htm